http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/list/2.page JForum - http://www.jforum.net http://seedmagazine.com/news/2008/09/the_creation_simulation.php

Interesting reading, though not well sourced. Seed is legit, though.

The article says Will Wright was sort of overturned on a lot of sciency simulation stuff by others on the team concerned about marketing and playability.

-Kris
]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/47265.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/47265.page GMT
Did people really think that Will Wright was coming down on the side of cells with eyes? Come on. He built robots for Battlebots. ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/47272.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/47272.page GMT
I guess it is not his fault]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/47286.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/47286.page GMT cuteness was nesscary. Look at other games (hunting, RPG, FPS) they don't need
cuteness and they sell millions of copies. *sigh* maybe some day they will create
a realistic add-on to make the game look better. Don't get me wrong, I like the current
Spore but that "Cute Man" should be fired as I see him as the reason Spore dissappointed
many, he killed Science Spore!
]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/47331.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/47331.page GMT Progress in many games depends on a cycle of observation, theorizing, and experimentation, and Spore is no different. The whole game is a giant consequence generator, and scientists like Webster feel this is where much of Spore's value is to be found. "There's a degree of reasoning. You're trying to make changes that you think will affect the future — isolating factors, changing one thing, keeping others the same, and seeing what happens. This is often how science is described, and there is an element of the scientific method in all of that."[/quote]

Whaaaaaaat? Where is this in Spore? *boggle*

[quote]Poor Will =(

I guess it is not his fault[/quote]

Maybe...but then again, I see him as somewhat complicit for not coming clean on this issue much, much earlier. For not speaking up, especially to those of us [i]who are on his side[/i] in this...assuming that's what we are. Cuz while I'm more willing to accept FTL in the name of gameplay than he was according to the article, in many other ways I would prefer a less marketable game that gets into genuine scientific concepts than this...this Smurfs-in-a-terrarium game we've got.

]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/47364.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/47364.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/47406.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/47406.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/47424.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/47424.page GMT
When I first saw Spore in that 2005 preview video, I was completely amazed. Here was Will Wright, the creator of my favorite game (SimCity 4), showing me a game that I could almost never have dreamed of! How could this go wrong? Then I saw the videos with the cells and their eyes. Okay, I thought, so they got rid of some realism. I can deal with that.

But then Maxis started releasing thos prototypes, and I started gaining hope again. Hope of a game that really could simulate, even in the most limited sense, a living, breathing galaxy! All those prototypes pointed to a Spore that I would have wanted, with the same amount of detail and realism as SimCity 4 (or at least the Sims).

Unfortunately, that's not what Spore is. The focus of Spore should really have been put on the editors, not the supposed "universe in a box" concept. Spore isn't bad, it's just not what it was meant to be.

[quote=ddhboy]This makes sense because how would the player interact with the creatures if it were truly evolution, and how many tedious evolutions would I have to do to get into space? What I think is that a lot of evolutionists were pegging spore to be a teaching tool, which its not, its a video game, one that isn't supposed to be taken so seriously. [/quote]

That's not the point! SimCity was extremely realistic, but it wasn't meant (or implied) to be a "teaching tool". Of course they're games, and they are not supposed to be taken seriously. What we miss in Spore is the depth and realism the exist in SimCity and The Sims. Just look at those prototypes! If Spore had contained more of the ideas in those then it would have been awesome!

[quote=klokkwork]I would so give anything to play the Spore that Will Wright envisioned. Cute Spore is fun, but I want a shot at Science Spore. [/quote]

I too would give anything. I'm glad Will Wright was on the science side of Spore, and very disapointed with those "cutsie" and "marketability" people (is this what happend to SimCity Societies?).

]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/47442.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/47442.page GMT
But the cynical and shamefully compromising conclusion was, apparently: the unwashed masses are too dimwitted to grasp such advanced concepts. Give them something suited for a slow 5th grader with ADD and they'll be lulled into handing us money.

That is unfortunate.

The fact is that Spore could have appealed to the casual [i]and[/i] the "hardcore" crowd, without any essential compromises on its original design concepts. A game like Spore could have been both accessibly engaging on a casual level [i]and[/i] have contained enough further optional depth, in terms of sophisticated gameplay and a multitude of non-rigid, non-repetitive, non-mindless "sandbox" activities, to to keep the more invested players (not to say the more mentally active...) coming back for more.

Spore's failures are, as I've long suspected, evidently the result of specific wrong ideas about the kind of mindset the developers were targeting.
Above all, the game's faults are the result of a definite deficiency of integrity toward any ambitious, large-scale, intellectually meaningful ideas--whether ideas about the artistic potential and future direction of computer games, about their relation to broader intellectual thought, especially science, or whether simply about the scope of novel, challenging game design concepts that could be accommodated in a mass market product.

To put it simply, they thought that by dumbing down their product they could appeal to the crowd. But at this point that is merely stating the obvious.

The fact is that they would have truly earned unqualified respect and, without any hyperbole, an exalted place in (gaming) history, if they had simply stuck to their principles and made the kind of game they could have--a game that actually encompasses the ambitious conceptual breadth they spoke of in their rhetoric, a game with engaging, clever gameplay, with broad appeal but which nevertheless didn't sacrifice its intelligence and didn't start with insulting the minds of its players as a basic premise.

It might still be done, and Will Wright et al. should be the ones to do it. In justice, they deserve a good deal of credit for what they have in fact done.
But they need to follow through on their own ideas.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/47597.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/47597.page GMT
Quoting your whole post would be pointless, redundant, and wasteful. I think that it deserves a reaction, though, and I think the most significant and meaningful reaction I could give is this: "Yes."

I mean, what more need be said?
Oh, I could wax hyperbolic, repeat something I said once about stunned silence following by the single strong and forcefully sincere clapping of one person, which then crescendos into an audience-wide uproar of support...but you get the idea without that, I think.
Frankly, I think they underestimated their audience and the power of word-of-mouth to sell a game, and they wasted a golden opportunity by succumbing to marketing. To make an analogy to movies, they sacrificed the chance to be a beloved classic for the flash-in-the-pan revenue of a summer blockbuster that does two weekends of brisk business and is then quickly forgotten.

"Here Lies Spore, Killed by the Almighty Dollar; Abandon All Intelligence, Ye Who Enter Here" ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/47833.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/47833.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/47845.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/47845.page GMT I'll just add that it was not their pursuit of the dollar that caused the problem. That is a thoroughly virtuous quest in itself.

It was the totally short range approach they thought was necessary to obtain it that caused the problem. The flash-in-the-pan, fly-by-night, pander-to-the-crowd strategy.

But a game of substance would result in more profit in the long-run. That is the contradiction. ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/47856.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/47856.page GMT
Interesting reading, though not well sourced. Seed is legit, though.

The article says Will Wright was sort of overturned on a lot of sciency simulation stuff by others on the team concerned about marketing and playability.

-Kris
[/quote]

That's a fascinating thing. I kind of figured his dreams would be overshadowed by the almighty dollar.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/47870.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/47870.page GMT cuteness was nesscary. Look at other games (hunting, RPG, FPS) they don't need
cuteness and they sell millions of copies. *sigh* maybe some day they will create
a realistic add-on to make the game look better. Don't get me wrong, I like the current
Spore but that "Cute Man" should be fired as I see him as the reason Spore dissappointed
many, he killed Science Spore!
[/quote]


Yeah but then you need to look at World of Warcraft over a lot of the other MMO's that are out there. It's the *most* popular out of all of them and it is cartoonish. The fact is cute sells. There's also a reason why the alliance side in WoW was always more popular then horde - again because people want cute little gnomes or night elves instead of things that look like Bulls or have huge ugly tusks.

Some people in here have made some very realistic and not-cute designs and other people have made cute designs. My personal tastes is for cute (That's why my favorite animals are things like rabbits and koala's and dogs and cats because they are all cute) the way I see the current set up though is that it caters for all kinds of styles and preferences.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/47890.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/47890.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/47898.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/47898.page GMT Oh dear...

"Your creature cannot advance to the Tribal stage until it learns to tie its own shoes."]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/47917.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/47917.page GMT cuteness was nesscary. Look at other games (hunting, RPG, FPS) they don't need
cuteness and they sell millions of copies. *sigh* maybe some day they will create
a realistic add-on to make the game look better. Don't get me wrong, I like the current
Spore but that "Cute Man" should be fired as I see him as the reason Spore dissappointed
many, he killed Science Spore!
[/quote]


Yeah but then you need to look at World of Warcraft over a lot of the other MMO's that are out there. It's the *most* popular out of all of them and it is cartoonish. The fact is cute sells. There's also a reason why the alliance side in WoW was always more popular then horde - again because people want cute little gnomes or night elves instead of things that look like Bulls or have huge ugly tusks.

Some people in here have made some very realistic and not-cute designs and other people have made cute designs. My personal tastes is for cute (That's why my favorite animals are things like rabbits and koala's and dogs and cats because they are all cute) the way I see the current set up though is that it caters for all kinds of styles and preferences.[/quote]

If you think the graphics are why wow sells you really should never get into game development.

Your projects will tank.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/47940.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/47940.page GMT
I find inner cellular workings fascinating.

I play a game only when I think it is worthy. Last one I played with any regularity was PlanetSide. That was a fun game - until support stopped. Then it started again, and four years after not playing - I played for two months. It was fun, but again, because of the lack of real options it got boring again.

Black and White 2: I anticipated that one for a long long time, thought I had something special. Thpbpbpbpbpt. Stopped playing a week after I got it.

Black and White (original): I still have this game installed, and I still play it. It is still awesome, fun, and engrossing to me. I also still make maps and modify things so I can play new stuff. No armies, none of that RTS stuff they did with BnW2 - just building your village, blowing up your neighbors, etc. Fun. Also it can get complex if you let it - and you can establish trade with other villages. It's a heavy version of what I wanted in the tribal stage of Spore. Honestly.

Soldat: Need I say more? Got bored with that only after four years - made maps and new things to do all the time in it. Got to make things. Then play them.

Sim Tower: Still have it installed.

SimCity4: Yes.

Sims2: For a while. Kinda got bored, and ended up becoming a Serial Killer (I wanted a huge graveyard. I advise you never visit Dr. Jykell's house. Ever. But have not played for more than two years)

Half-Life 1 & 2: I used to love it, but grew out of it years ago. But, playing the same game for nearly 10 years... that's a good record (two major mods were and are still HL1 only)

Homeworld: Played that for about seven years.

Homeworld Cataclysm: Played that until last year - because it was a great expansion that was stand-alone. Good story, great art, and you could tell they really put alot of effort into it. I rank it higher than the original Homeworld.

Homeworld 2: Five days. Really. They simplified so many things...

So - games I have played and still play (even on occasion)

Black and White
SimTower
SimCity
Spore

Additional games I have played in the past year
PlanetSide
Soldat

I'm very selective about what I game, and the fact the game we're discussing now drew me in means to me, before I played it, I thought it was something worth the investment. Whether or not that is still the case remains to be seen. I would have sided with science, all out.

I would have probably kidnapped the 'Cute' founder and sent him to an undisclosed location in Canada until the game was released. I say this in jest of course, but I will take science over cute any day, any time, any place.

A relative I showed this game to, who is 10, looked at it, watched it, played a little of it, and said to me point blank "This is a little kid's game." He then went back to playing the Sims 2 (with several expansions he has hand selected and is awarded for good behavior) where he has an entire neighborhood filled with houses, sims, pets, and everything else that he made - and he makes these huge houses, and all of his sims are filthy rich - something I was never able to do without a certain console code

He would rather play The Sims 2, than Spore... and soon he's getting the season's addon which he gleefully explained everything about it to me. Seasons, storms, snow, heat-stroke, lightning... ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/47965.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/47965.page GMT

If it dosent have something i want it gets eaten/lynched/planet-busted


and if it does have something i want it gets eaten/lynched/planet-busted
]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/47974.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/47974.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48047.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48047.page GMT
They will make you cry, and then sell you tissues.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48062.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48062.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48068.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48068.page GMT ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48071.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48071.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48131.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48131.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48142.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48142.page GMT
This issue is not anything so trivial as the style of graphics. It's the substance of the gameplay.
The graphics were just a symptom of the underlying approach to the style of gameplay.

Instead of "cute," they might as well have said trifling, light, superficial, oversimplified, trivial, etc. etc.

It is cute in the way that balls of fluff can be cute, but also lack any solid substance.
Spore is fluff.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48160.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48160.page GMT
Btw what rails. Hand rails? Train rails? What? o_o]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48236.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48236.page GMT
The cake is a lie. ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48373.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48373.page GMT
A relative I showed this game to, who is 10, looked at it, watched it, played a little of it, and said to me point blank "This is a little kid's game." He then went back to playing the Sims 2 (with several expansions he has hand selected and is awarded for good behavior) where he has an entire neighborhood filled with houses, sims, pets, and everything else that he made - and he makes these huge houses, and all of his sims are filthy rich - something I was never able to do without a certain console code

He would rather play The Sims 2, than Spore... and soon he's getting the season's addon which he gleefully explained everything about it to me. Seasons, storms, snow, heat-stroke, lightning... [/quote]

I played with the creature editor with my 8yo sister and we both loved it. We were excited about spore when it came out. She played the game for 3 days and promptly started playing Sims 2 again. She then told me a few days ago that i was right about there needing to be more depth to the game(previously she was against it because it may be too hard) since it was "boring".

I LOVE cute, but to sacrifice the intelligence for the cute factor was monumentally foolish.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48417.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48417.page GMT
A relative I showed this game to, who is 10, looked at it, watched it, played a little of it, and said to me point blank "This is a little kid's game." He then went back to playing the Sims 2 (with several expansions he has hand selected and is awarded for good behavior) where he has an entire neighborhood filled with houses, sims, pets, and everything else that he made - and he makes these huge houses, and all of his sims are filthy rich - something I was never able to do without a certain console code

He would rather play The Sims 2, than Spore... and soon he's getting the season's addon which he gleefully explained everything about it to me. Seasons, storms, snow, heat-stroke, lightning... [/quote]

I played with the creature editor with my 8yo sister and we both loved it. We were excited about spore when it came out. She played the game for 3 days and promptly started playing Sims 2 again. She then told me a few days ago that i was right about there needing to be more depth to the game(previously she was against it because it may be too hard) since it was "boring".

I LOVE cute, but to sacrifice the intelligence for the cute factor was monumentally foolish.[/quote]

You know who has been saying this sort of thing about games for years and barely gets any mention because he can't afford advertising?

ME! Motherfreaking me!

Ok I wanted to get that out because I'm a very egocentric guy and when people start talking about stuff I already beat to death across the internet for years I get antsy in my pantsy.

I am going to purchase some commercial time one of these days and get people to know who I am ;p.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48426.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48426.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48433.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48433.page GMT
This is what I have suspected. I just can't believe that the writer of SimLife would have come up with this piece of cutesy trash.

Now I'm even more angry This article just makes me feel sick to my stomach. There is a process of the Hasbroization of anything good. We don't get any good movies anymore, they need to be dumbed down so that 8 year olds can enjoy them. There is nothing good on TV anymore for the same reason. Everything is this bland family-friendly pablum.

Well, I hope this decision harms your sales, Maxis and EA, to such an extent that you quit dumbing your products down. Screw this.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48442.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48442.page GMT
The new game is so tragic because you can see the work, the hours, the months, the years, and then you can see the claw where it had its very guts ripped from it.

When Will Wright makes a game, shut up and just work. Give opinions, give ideas, but make the game in his vision. From what I am learning and reading, his vision was as is said here, compromised.

So what if Spore would have had a slower start to catch on? It would have brought procedural to a whole new crowd who could use it in the future of gaming. Heck, you could have kept that vision, added a complexity slider, and had all the cute fluff you wanted based on what complexity you wanted.

Maybe Spore is not doomed though, maybe if, just if, we're loud enough, the spore we wanted, the one he envisioned, could be brought to us. In spite of bugs and such, they could be patched. Even on this build we have now, maybe it could be patched.

Not expanded. Patched. If that ever happened, that one sublime act of saying "here it is, as it was meant to be" would be the single most amazing act of integrity on an online game-based world... ever.

Then you could really call him Gaming Jesus. Or Spode. ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48450.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48450.page GMT
It won't. Those people who wanted "science spore" went and brought it anyway despite the fact that it was obvious prior to release spore wasn't what they wanted/expected. You only had to look at the trailer to see that. Naturally we hear a lot of complaining after but the sale has been made and EA have the cash. Then we have the vast majority of people who actually brought and enjoy the game as is and there are a lot of them. All told probably a lot of units sold and a successful game in terms of getting your hard earned cash. ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48453.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48453.page GMT [b]Maybe Spore is not doomed though, maybe if, just if, we're loud enough[/b], the spore we wanted, the one he envisioned, could be brought to us. In spite of bugs and such, they could be patched. Even on this build we have now, maybe it could be patched.

Not expanded. Patched. If that ever happened, that one sublime act of saying [u]"here it is, as it was meant to be" would be the single most amazing act of integrity on an online game-based world... ever.[/u]

Then you could really call him Gaming Jesus. Or Spode. [/quote]

That is the dream right? If only we say it again or in the right way they will listen and fix Spore and have it live up to its potential. It would be a miracle if this game was patched with the fix. It would be awesome, as in filling us with awe. That sence of wonder at discovery that was mentioned so frequently by the designers would be restored.
]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48459.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48459.page GMT It won't. Those people who wanted "science spore" went and brought it anyway despite the fact that it was obvious prior to release spore wasn't what they wanted/expected. [/quote]

I believe a new thread pretty much destroyed this argument. The stuff prior to release WAS more complex and way better (just my opinion even though I didn't even watch the trailer, only a Discovery Channel special that mentioned how spore WOULD do edit: complex things). Unless the person isn't who he says he is or he IS but is just lying.

Edit 2: On a side note, do you guys think the makers and marketing of spore and anyone that matters looks at any of the opinions we post?]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48465.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48465.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48483.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48483.page GMT
They said in the Q&A that they do. ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48488.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48488.page GMT It won't. Those people who wanted "science spore" went and brought it anyway despite the fact that it was obvious prior to release spore wasn't what they wanted/expected. [/quote]

I believe a new thread pretty much destroyed this argument. The stuff prior to release WAS more complex and way better (just my opinion even though I didn't even watch the trailer, only a Discovery Channel special that mentioned how spore WOULD do edit: complex things). Unless the person isn't who he says he is or he IS but is just lying.

Edit 2: On a side note, do you guys think the makers and marketing of spore and anyone that matters looks at any of the opinions we post?[/quote]

If they do, I hope that Will is one of them. We've got Wright lineage in the family, on two sides. One side may or may not (yet to be confirmed) be related to the 'Brothers' while the other may or may not be (again, waiting for genealogy research) related to Frank Lloyd. Not really on topic, but I do hope he reads what is here, or at least skims. I know he looks at creatures, adds sporecasts, and such - but he only has two creations in his profile (does he play?)]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48489.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48489.page GMT It won't. Those people who wanted "science spore" went and brought it anyway despite the fact that it was obvious prior to release spore wasn't what they wanted/expected. [/quote]

I believe a new thread pretty much destroyed this argument. The stuff prior to release WAS more complex and way better (just my opinion even though I didn't even watch the trailer, only a Discovery Channel special that mentioned how spore WOULD do edit: complex things). Unless the person isn't who he says he is or he IS but is just lying.

Edit 2: On a side note, do you guys think the makers and marketing of spore and anyone that matters looks at any of the opinions we post?[/quote]

On a sitenote even the interview with Will Wright on the making of disk doesn't sound like he's talking about the current game.

Then on the national geographic video you see them talking about fish (not truly significant I admit) however the big part was the fact that eye quality played a part in graphical quality.

Keep your cell eyes and your vision was blurry, get better eyes and it looks gorgeous.

Just another thing that never made it into the game but made it into a video that came with the game. Puzzling. They Eye thing is in the DS game, if you have better eyes you see secret items better.

I just end up a little heart broken that the man who brought me the wonder of Sim City 2000 (It changed my perspective on the power of gaming) could have a product fall short like this.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48502.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48502.page GMT
What up wit' dat? As one of my college friends would say.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48505.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48505.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48507.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48507.page GMT
About 15 minutes ago.

]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48512.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48512.page GMT
About 15 minutes ago.

[/quote]

That was pretty funny .

I've updated my siggy picture btw. For you know...the two people in here to see ;p.

I'm off to bed though! JEEBUS!]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48517.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48517.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48521.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48521.page GMT
I have more sadness than last week of what happened to Spore.

I still have yet to give up all hope of what Spore could be.

As long as what it could be does not involve expansions. ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48523.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48523.page GMT
It won't. Those people who wanted "science spore" went and brought it anyway despite the fact that it was obvious prior to release spore wasn't what they wanted/expected. You only had to look at the trailer to see that. Naturally we hear a lot of complaining after but the sale has been made and EA have the cash. Then we have the vast majority of people who actually brought and enjoy the game as is and there are a lot of them. All told probably a lot of units sold and a successful game in terms of getting your hard earned cash. [/quote]
This is partially true, but the lukewarm critical reception and drastically low user ratings on several important sites do matter. On Metacritic it has an 85, and only a 4.6 out of 10 (!!!) from the users. The Amazon user rating is at 1.5 out of 5 (reading the customer reviews shows that that rating is only partially due to the SecuRom nonsense--shallow gameplay is repeatedly mentioned).

People do consider these things when buying a game. I'm sure that the "casual" audience--those in the name of whom all our mental processes above the animal level have been sacrificed--are the people most likely to be turned off from any [i]casual[/i] interest they might have had in the game. They are not the ones who've followed the progress of the game for years and would have bought it regardless. In addition, word of mouth matters. I'll wager that very few people indeed are hearing that Spore is the great one, that it has met its lofty aspirations and realized its potential. Instead, and as many user reviews around the internet and anecdotal comments on the forum suggest, the game already has a reputation for childish simplicity and shallowness. The joke is that, as mentioned in this thread, even children--who are generally far more savvy with games than your average EA/Maxis employee, evidently--dismiss this game as beneath them.

No, their sales will definitely suffer, relative to what they might have been. The game might still reach some financial target of theirs, and thereby secure them their fast buck, but that doesn't mean this was the sound business decision. Like I said before, the fact is that their financial interests always lay in making the best product (contextually) possible. In the long run this would make them [i]more[/i] money.

Their perception of a conflict between the intelligence of their game and its profitability was the result of short-range, pragmatist thinking on their part. They should have been working on intelligent ways of making the game casually appealing but still packed with underlying substance. It could have been done. In large part, it seems that the fact that it wasn't is due to some cynical and ultimately condescending prejudices of certain members of the design team.

For the reasons I indicated in a previous post, Spore had the potential to appeal to casual and "hardcore" gamers alike. They weren't in any way forced into the incredible compromises they committed.

We can only hope that the better ideas among the designers have not died, because EA's very rational and, for us, mutually beneficial model of sustaining a game over the long run with many expansions still allows for the opportunity to salvage Spore.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48582.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/48582.page GMT
1. Creatures should function no matter how the user builds it.

2. The enviroment should have a real impact on the evolution of the creature.


Solution: Death Bonuses

Create four stats; Feirocity, Poise, Robustness, and Awareness.
Feirocity enhances all combat by a percentage.
Poise enhance all social interations by a percentage.
Robustness improves total health by a percentage.
Awareness gives a bonus to stealth and speed.

Whenever the creature dies, based on how it died, the next generation gets a boost to one of these stats (at the cost of some progress).

This solves #1 because no matter how stupidly you build the creature, it will eventually get enough of these bonuses that you can continue.

It also make sense scientifically because not all evolutionary changes are morphological. If a species for whatever reason stubbornly refuses to develop legs- that it will select for members that are very good at sensing danger. If a species like a badger, is underarmed for it's enviroment, than any of the meek will be eaten and you will be left with a ferocious species that uses it lackluster physicall gifts to extrodinary effect. (I saw a nature show once where a badger stared down a bear.)

Unfortuneatly, these ideas don't come up if you divide into camps that are preocupied with proving there way is better.

I think spore should be able to teach some science and tell amazing and improbable stories. The universe is afterall a crazy place.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/49691.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/49691.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/49732.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/49732.page GMT
I'd like to have seen his original idea come to light.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/49749.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/49749.page GMT The article says Will Wright was sort of overturned on a lot of sciency simulation stuff by others on the team concerned about marketing and playability.
[/quote]

These people have my money, so sadly the real debate, which is always about money, can't be decided.

That doesn't stop me from disliking them and making sure not to buy Maxis again.
]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/49770.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/49770.page GMT
That games with shallow gameplay sell alot doesnt mean that alot of people like shallow gameplay, and noone would choose a game just because of its shallow nature.

Acccesability is nice, but have you ever heard someone say how good a game is because the gameplay is easy to grasp? And you've probably heard someone tell you that a certain game is great because theres so much to do. These two could have been combined, but they choose to compeltely focus on the first one, thats a really bad move.


On a side note, who likes cute anyways? For some it doesnt have to be scientific, but that doesnt hurt, on the other hand who would love the game becauseof its cuteness? Maybe 8 year old girls, but theyve never bought alot of videogames.



Well theres at least one good thing that can be said about spore, itll teach other gamedevelopers that decisions like these are really, really bad. (Oh and it teaches EA about the drm thing, but thats a different matter)]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/49786.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/49786.page GMT If you dont believe me thats your deal.


I've told the regulars that i'm a digital musician.
I'm on a contract.
It often happens that me and my crew go into the studio
(my crew being me and my 2 friends )
with a brilliant idea for a song. We get the tunes going, we wrap it up. We drive up to my chiefs house get him out of bed, make him listen to the SPORE tune .....and he says: 'Guys its great! But unfortenatly it will never sell.'
'Sure it will sell, but we wont get the costs out of the sale of the single.'

Same goes for the game industry.
Will must have had to make a choice at one point.
Artistic freedom by EA by giving them a project that actually earns money.

Or to make a game that will keep his fanbase loyal but that frankly...might cut of his future in developing games.
I'm sure Will had to make a decision to either dance with the devil or to walk away.
For our sake he danced with the devil in the hope that some of the original ideas would come thru in the end.

thats my take on it at least.

]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/49793.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/49793.page GMT
Now, I don't think we can ever know which would have made more money, long term OR short term. But games like starcraft, diablo 2, simcity 4k, civilization series, WoW, and C&C are also made for "causal" and "hardcore" (what ever the HECK those two mean) alike and made bank.

You can make a ground breaking game and it can spring board your company to fame, but I guess Maxis and EA didn't need that.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/49822.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/49822.page GMT
You can make a ground breaking game and it can spring board your company to fame, but I guess Maxis and EA didn't need that.[/quote]

Yup, suprisingly most of the big compagnies are very cautious about innovation.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/49851.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/49851.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/49864.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/49864.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/49867.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/49867.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/49873.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/49873.page GMT
The idea the game would not be fun because there was "too much science" is a load of crap from people who study science by reading the "Lifestyles" section of their local paper. Dumming Spore down is an idea that stems from greed, and one of the reasons movies in Hollywood tend to suck so badly. They don't want to turn anyone off, don't want to offend, don't want to confuse, don't want to alienate. And all Wright did was turn off the loyal fans who were waiting for the game HE HIMSELF sold to us before it was launched. He alienated his "base." He's no better than a politician who whores himself to the independents at the expense of his base because he figures he's got his base "locked up".

I have fun with Spore, but I also have fun with Lego's. And while lego's are nothing knew, neither is Spore. It's not innovative. It's a hodge-podge of different games slapped together with a common logo/theme, neither one of which is particularly that much fun on its own (space stage and creature a little).

What I think we're going to need (those of us who wanted Spore to be something other than Hello Kitty Island Adventure on steroids) is a Spore Science Pack that puts all the elements the geniuses took out back in. Fat chance of that happening but we can always dream.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/50284.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/50284.page GMT cuteness was nesscary. Look at other games (hunting, RPG, FPS) they don't need
cuteness and they sell millions of copies. *sigh* maybe some day they will create
a realistic add-on to make the game look better. Don't get me wrong, I like the current
Spore but that "Cute Man" should be fired as I see him as the reason Spore dissappointed
many, he killed Science Spore!
[/quote]


Yeah but then you need to look at World of Warcraft over a lot of the other MMO's that are out there. It's the *most* popular out of all of them and it is cartoonish. The fact is cute sells. There's also a reason why the alliance side in WoW was always more popular then horde - again because people want cute little gnomes or night elves instead of things that look like Bulls or have huge ugly tusks.

Some people in here have made some very realistic and not-cute designs and other people have made cute designs. My personal tastes is for cute (That's why my favorite animals are things like rabbits and koala's and dogs and cats because they are all cute) the way I see the current set up though is that it caters for all kinds of styles and preferences.[/quote]

hey now im straight up horde DOWN WITH THE ALLIANCE!! i have not a single alliance character in wow lol, looks like its time to reactivate my account now that im bored with spore, i was hoping spore would help my wallet a bit by keeping me from wow for a while but looks like thats not gonna happen lol]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/50301.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/50301.page GMT That is a common view around here, which I abundantly share. But this is a nicely succinct way of putting it, so I'm just reposting it.

I'll add that Legos almost certainly take more sophistication of thought and teach a child more than this game ever could. With Legos, there is a certain precise, logical way the pieces have to fit together, and if you want to make something coherent and functional you have to learn (on a child's level) some basic principles of construction. The tactile experience of manipulating intricate objects in reality and experimenting with their possibilities is surely more mentally constructive than any of Spore's tools. The Spore editors are more like a blank canvas on which you can scribble any random thing you want and get it to "work." Now, if they had followed through with their original goal and given functional, physical significance to creature design, it would have been both a tremendously more interesting and enjoyable game and a far more mentally engaging, even educational process.

Even that would have been a phenomenally greater achievement than the Spore we got instead. But now think of those Legos that incorporate real robotics and programmable action... I can't think of a better toy around today for a child's mind--second only to the sadly out-of-fashion chemistry sets of old. It is not surprising that so many famous scientists--who have profoundly advanced the human race and improved our lives--attribute their early love of science to their playing with chemistry sets as children.

When you think of the potential of toys like these (certainly not just for children), potential of the sort that Will Wright himself explicitly talked up in the marketing phase, the shrunken aspirations of Spore are made to look even smaller and less excusable.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/50330.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/50330.page GMT
That really seems uncalled for. "Happily"? How could you know this?

-FrL-]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/50413.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/50413.page GMT
That really seems uncalled for. "Happily"? How could you know this?

-FrL-[/quote]

Actually, we don't; if what we're seeing now is to be believed, he was persuaded by the Cute Spore team...that he gave in is distressing, but we have no indication that he didn't fight hard for [i]REAL[/i] Spore before caving.

I'd [i]LIKE[/i] to give him the benefit of the doubt...though I would have thought he'd fight for Spore's original vision and win.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/50420.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/50420.page GMT
That really seems uncalled for. "Happily"? How could you know this?

-FrL-[/quote]

Actually, we don't; if what we're seeing now is to be believed, he was persuaded by the Cute Spore team...that he gave in is distressing, but we have no indication that he didn't fight hard for [i]REAL[/i] Spore before caving.

I'd [i]LIKE[/i] to give him the benefit of the doubt...though I would have thought he'd fight for Spore's original vision and win.[/quote]

I am not sure Will deserves the benefit of the doubt. At the end of the day, it is his game and Will is still the boss. The buck has to stop some place. I would agree with you if it was a budget issue that it could be an EA problem.

I am giving EA a pass on this one because I really think they left them alone to do what they needed/wanted. This screw up appears to be a Maxis one. Cute won the day and we can expect more of the same from the expansions in my opinion. The game we thought we were getting, the game we have followed for many years will never be. They can add a ocean level but if its more of the same what is the point? Just more fluff and no game is what we will continue to get because I just don't see Maxis at this point going back and making major game changes to the game we have right now.



]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/50460.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/50460.page GMT cuteness was nesscary. Look at other games (hunting, RPG, FPS) they don't need
cuteness and they sell millions of copies. *sigh* maybe some day they will create
a realistic add-on to make the game look better. Don't get me wrong, I like the current
Spore but that "Cute Man" should be fired as I see him as the reason Spore dissappointed
many, he killed Science Spore!
[/quote]


Yeah but then you need to look at World of Warcraft over a lot of the other MMO's that are out there. It's the *most* popular out of all of them and it is cartoonish. The fact is cute sells. There's also a reason why the alliance side in WoW was always more popular then horde - again because people want cute little gnomes or night elves instead of things that look like Bulls or have huge ugly tusks.

Some people in here have made some very realistic and not-cute designs and other people have made cute designs. My personal tastes is for cute (That's why my favorite animals are things like rabbits and koala's and dogs and cats because they are all cute) the way I see the current set up though is that it caters for all kinds of styles and preferences.[/quote]

I never have (nor will I) state that cute doesn't sell. However the Cute isn't the main problem, the problem is that instead of focusing on making a great game they scraped alot of great ideas just to make it more cute. If it was cute and yet had ONE scientific process it would be so much better. It's your right to make cute things, and I don't hate cute things, I just wish instead of that guy fighting to make Dissapoint Spore he would of let Will's Spore come to life. I like Spore and I won't stop playing it for a while, and maybe I'll get Will's Spore by the time I turn 50
I knew that Spore was dissapoint when I first saw it I just hoped it wouldn't.

I hate WoW don't know why I guess playing a game with a bunch of immature teens isn't my bag. ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/50848.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/50848.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/50936.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/50936.page GMT
They wanted to make an "Epic" game for "Casual" gamers.

Just that sentence explains a lot. And Will said it numerous times, he wanted to make this game for The Sims players in mind. So in there we see a huge problem, for any game with epic scope implies a lot of content, and then spore wanted several stages, so that implied even more elements. So for someone thats used to manage a few sims with basic needs, you can't expect anything close to the scope or complexity of Master Of Orion type of games. It wouldn't fit the target audience.

I'm just a little baffled on how Will flaunted how much focus there would be to science knowing full well that everything would have to be "simplified" so that a casual The Sims player wouldn't feel overwhelmed. It's this contradiction that made Spore what it is today.

And please note, who is complaining? The hardcore gamers. Or people that were expecting greater complexity, more in depth diplomacy, trading. If it's not "Casual The Sims player friendly", we couldn't expect for it to be in the game. ALTOUGH, I totally feel people were lead on a bit by the numerous videos of a more complex game. Many things Will said in those videos, those things were never adresed as launch came to happen.

For laughs, please view the civilization developper video that was realesed a few days before Spore Launch. First, I like when one of the Software Engineers Soren Johnson says "One of the big features of uhh... civ is that it has a vv... fairly deep diplomacy model" LOL, did he realize as he was saying it that he was stretching the truth a bit. Then the other guy says "What I like to do, is play with the cities, and the citizens inside the cities." ... REALLY, what do you do exactly with the citizens? Ok, at the space stage you could zap em, or wtv, but you can't even intereact with citizens at the civ stage. What is he talking about? And again, Soren, says this "If you fight alongside another civ during the civ stage, they will be able to go with you to the next stage......." It's all your creature as the opozing nations anyway at this point. I would of been fun for them to allow other creatures to ascend to civ as in the tribal stage. Anyways.

Enough said.




]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/51335.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/51335.page GMT That is a common view around here, which I abundantly share. But this is a nicely succinct way of putting it, so I'm just reposting it.

I'll add that Legos almost certainly take more sophistication of thought and teach a child more than this game ever could. With Legos, there is a certain precise, logical way the pieces have to fit together, and if you want to make something coherent and functional you have to learn (on a child's level) some basic principles of construction. The tactile experience of manipulating intricate objects in reality and experimenting with their possibilities is surely more mentally constructive than any of Spore's tools. The Spore editors are more like a blank canvas on which you can scribble any random thing you want and get it to "work." Now, if they had followed through with their original goal and given functional, physical significance to creature design, it would have been both a tremendously more interesting and enjoyable game and a far more mentally engaging, even educational process.

Even that would have been a phenomenally greater achievement than the Spore we got instead. But now think of those Legos that incorporate real robotics and programmable action... I can't think of a better toy around today for a child's mind--second only to the sadly out-of-fashion chemistry sets of old. It is not surprising that so many famous scientists--who have profoundly advanced the human race and improved our lives--attribute their early love of science to their playing with chemistry sets as children.

When you think of the potential of toys like these (certainly not just for children), potential of the sort that Will Wright himself explicitly talked up in the marketing phase, the shrunken aspirations of Spore are made to look even smaller and less excusable.[/quote]

Speaking of Lego's I'm playing Lego Batman.

If you want to see how making something simple doesn't mean you have to make it suck people should check it out . It's nothing groundbreaking but its the sort of time kill that I like. It's also only 40 dollars .]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/51389.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/51389.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/51407.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/51407.page GMT
For laughs, please view the civilization developper video that was realesed a few days before Spore Launch. First, I like when one of the Software Engineers Soren Johnson says [b]"One of the big features of uhh... civ is that it has a vv... fairly deep diplomacy model"[/b] LOL, did he realize as he was saying it that he was stretching the truth a bit. Then the other guy says [b]"What I like to do, is play with the cities, and the citizens inside the cities."[/b] ... REALLY, what do you do exactly with the citizens? Ok, at the space stage you could zap em, or wtv, but you can't even intereact with citizens at the civ stage. What is he talking about? And again, Soren, says this [b]"If you fight alongside another civ during the civ stage, they will be able to go with you to the next stage......."[/b] It's all your creature as the opozing nations anyway at this point. I would of been fun for them to allow other creatures to ascend to civ as in the tribal stage. Anyways.

Enough said.



[/quote]

Yeah, I remember that video!

What the aychee doublell were they talking about? It's as though they're talking about a completely different game.

Is there an actual [i]decent[/i] civ game hiding somewhere in the Maxis office, that they shelved in order to release the piece of silliness that we actually got?

-FrL-]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/51454.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/51454.page GMT Yeah but then you need to look at World of Warcraft over a lot of the other MMO's that are out there. It's the *most* popular out of all of them and it is cartoonish. The fact is cute sells. There's also a reason why the alliance side in WoW was always more popular then horde - again because people want cute little gnomes or night elves instead of things that look like Bulls or have huge ugly tusks.

Some people in here have made some very realistic and not-cute designs and other people have made cute designs. My personal tastes is for cute (That's why my favorite animals are things like rabbits and koala's and dogs and cats because they are all cute) the way I see the current set up though is that it caters for all kinds of styles and preferences.[/quote]

hey now im straight up horde DOWN WITH THE ALLIANCE!! i have not a single alliance character in wow lol, looks like its time to reactivate my account now that im bored with spore, i was hoping spore would help my wallet a bit by keeping me from wow for a while but looks like thats not gonna happen lol[/quote]

I just wanted to remind everyone about this:

[quote] I think people might be thinking wrong. It is not necessarily ugly graphics vs cute graphics. I think it is intelligence vs cute. Which is to say something an adult SHOULD enjoy, if they like thinking as opposed to being a zombie, or a 5 year old kid would enjoy, which they DO but I am not a 5 year old.[/quote]

Also, things tend to advance if the selection favors advancement (like evolution). If we keep settling for non-intellectual, low quality wares then that is what will be developed.

I have an example of this about 6 years ago. I went to Korea one of the years and was thinking it doesn't compare to the US except for the cell phone (and maybe some other technologies). They had movie phones (phones that played entire movies) and video phones at a time when all we had were camera-phones (and for CHEAPER than American phones!). Why? Probably many reasons, but one I'd like to think because so many of the American population were amazed at just camera phones and didn't really demand anything better. So keep demanding we want lower qualities games and maybe we will see what happens down the line. I don't know the future.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/52982.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/52982.page GMT I have an example of this about 6 years ago. I went to Korea one of the years and was thinking it doesn't compare to the US except for the cell phone (and maybe some other technologies). They had movie phones (phones that played entire movies) and video phones at a time when all we had were camera-phones (and for CHEAPER than American phones!). Why? Probably many reasons, but one I'd like to think because so many of the American population were amazed at just camera phones and didn't really demand anything better. So keep demanding we want lower qualities games and maybe we will see what happens down the line. I don't know the future.[/quote]

That and the fact that a lot of these products are made over there
But its true, why give them oranges if they will setle for lemons?
It is a capitalist world and the economists are have a field day.
But dont forget that just the majorety of the consumers are not educated on the fact that they influence as to whats being sold to them. Grab them by the wallet if you want something done these days.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/52997.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/52997.page GMT
I love how in this article they tackle the procedural creature creation. Rather than simply add tutorials explaining the functions of the creator, like explaining all if any consequence on your creature. Like for the 5 leg example. Once you add the 5th leg, the "speed" indicator on the stats bar could change to red and have a tool tip "Too many legs impair movement". Or "Sections of body are too heavy making the creature move slower". Wtv, i'm not saying this messages are pure gold and explain the entire problematic. But I think some of you will see what i'm getting at.

And anyways, What they said about the fact that having procedural creature creation would limit the creativity of people. In the sense that oh I can't make an 8 legged creature that runs super fast, how is that fixed in the current creature creator? Since parts are linked to wtv "attack/activity" the player is forced to chose these pieces to have a succesful creature. As much as putting no eyes makes the game harder to play, in what is that different than making an unbalanced creature and not having it funciton in an "optimal way".

And if anything, wouldn't of the procedural creature creation actually make people think when they create? In the sense of you make this funny looking creature. But when you start using it you realize that certain tweaks need to be made. And this approach would lead to discoveries of optimal placements or funny/bad results.

See in this field, the "simplyfing" of creature creation actually makes me less inclined to design anything special for, you just slap on the lvl 5 mouth and the level 5 feet, and the creature is fine. So theres no incentive of creative thinking as far as for impact on gameplay.







]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/53043.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/53043.page GMT
Then she turned to me and we had a conversation like this:

her: "So... if I put more eyes on my cell, he can see other creatures better?"
me: "No. Putting more eyes on it doesn't matter."
her: "Really? It seemed like the bigger creatures with spikes and a dozen eyes found me a lot easier."
me: "Actually, adding a dozen eyes is the same thing as having one eye, and it doesn't matter where you put them."
her: "Oh."

I'll add, the "Oh" being expressed with disappointment. Excitement was building because Spore was almost suggesting that her changes (like the eyes) made a difference in the game world, but it did not.

I guess someone could counter-argue that placing spikes versus spit parts does make a difference. However I think these decisions never map consistently to consequences.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/53067.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/53067.page GMT
Then she turned to me and we had a conversation like this:

her: "So... if I put more eyes on my cell, he can see other creatures better?"
me: "No. Putting more eyes on it doesn't matter."
her: "Really? It seemed like the bigger creatures with spikes and a dozen eyes found me a lot easier."
me: "Actually, adding a dozen eyes is the same thing as having one eye, and it doesn't matter where you put them."
her: "Oh."

I'll add, the "Oh" being expressed with disappointment. Excitement was building because Spore was almost suggesting that her changes (like the eyes) made a difference in the game world, but it did not.

I guess someone could counter-argue that placing spikes versus spit parts does make a difference. However I think these decisions never map consistently to consequences.[/quote]

Not that this is still related to the OP. But I think you are right that this is something that will have to be adressed by Maxis/EA. ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/53095.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/53095.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/53099.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/53099.page GMT cuteness was nesscary. Look at other games (hunting, RPG, FPS) they don't need
cuteness and they sell millions of copies. *sigh* maybe some day they will create
a realistic add-on to make the game look better. Don't get me wrong, I like the current
Spore but that "Cute Man" should be fired as I see him as the reason Spore dissappointed
many, he killed Science Spore!
[/quote]


Yeah but then you need to look at World of Warcraft over a lot of the other MMO's that are out there. It's the *most* popular out of all of them and it is cartoonish. The fact is cute sells. There's also a reason why the alliance side in WoW was always more popular then horde - again because people want cute little gnomes or night elves instead of things that look like Bulls or have huge ugly tusks.

Some people in here have made some very realistic and not-cute designs and other people have made cute designs. My personal tastes is for cute (That's why my favorite animals are things like rabbits and koala's and dogs and cats because they are all cute) the way I see the current set up though is that it caters for all kinds of styles and preferences.[/quote]

If you think the graphics are why wow sells you really should never get into game development.

Your projects will tank.[/quote]Badly

WoW's popularity as the biggest outlier in MMO history (I'd even say gaming history, but don't have numbers for that one) are due to three things:
1) Produced by a big name company people already liked and knew (Blizzard)
2) Used that company's most popular IP (Warcraft)
3) Had money thrown at it by that company to make it thrive]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/53121.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/53121.page GMT
Then she turned to me and we had a conversation like this:

her: "So... if I put more eyes on my cell, he can see other creatures better?"
me: "No. Putting more eyes on it doesn't matter."
her: "Really? It seemed like the bigger creatures with spikes and a dozen eyes found me a lot easier."
me: "Actually, adding a dozen eyes is the same thing as having one eye, and it doesn't matter where you put them."
her: "Oh."

I'll add, the "Oh" being expressed with disappointment. Excitement was building because Spore was almost suggesting that her changes (like the eyes) made a difference in the game world, but it did not.

I guess someone could counter-argue that placing spikes versus spit parts does make a difference. However I think these decisions never map consistently to consequences.[/quote]

A HA! They were wrong! Ok, this is only 1 person's reaction. But i'm sure that people wouldn't of been put off (as much as they seemed to imply) with procedural creature creation. And furthermore, I've posted about the fact that it does remove a bit of the incentive to experiement with the creator. Now it's just a 3d model I have to assemble that has no bearing on the game.

]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/53122.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/53122.page GMT [quote]4) Was designed by the most diabolically dedicated game-balancing team ever assembled. [/quote]

See Starcraft patch history....]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/53126.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/53126.page GMT
WoW's popularity as the biggest outlier in MMO history (I'd even say gaming history, but don't have numbers for that one) are due to three things:
1) Produced by a big name company people already liked and knew (Blizzard)
2) Used that company's most popular IP (Warcraft)
3) Had money thrown at it by that company to make it thrive[/quote]

WoW really plays no part in the discussion of Spore, but meh....

WoW did well because they made an EXCELLENT MMO 1-60. WoW up to about level 50 was the most fun I've had in an MMO, but then they changed dev teams and turned it in a grind game.

WoW itself though, pre-end game is very well done with a lot of care and detail.

Again what WoW has to do with Spore I don't know.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/53129.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/53129.page GMT
I know this is a bit out of context but [i]Blizzard[/i] should be taken as some kind of golden standard for product support. Even non-MMO games they've made in the past they've supported their player-base and fan-base through years and years of patches. The games initially designed and released by Blizzard rarely resemble the games that we see today. They are truly the kings of product/community support.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/53139.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/53139.page GMT
Will clearly sold himself, what a shame. But thats what happens in a capitalist world.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/53197.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/53197.page GMT
Nobody gives me the numbers of this small niche crowd.

Because when I go to places like pax, space conventions, technology conventions, or watch conventions on TV I see cumulative at least a few million people.

So when did a few million people become a niche market?

Because if it is I'd like to point you to the worlds largest MMO and it's niche market.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/53237.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/53237.page GMT
There's nothing wrong with cuteness. And it's 100% compatible with science. That entire article gave me a creeping feeling all over. Someone has used idiotic reasoning as a silly excuse to subvert gameplay. And now someone is using the same crap logic as an excuse for how much Spore sucks when it comes to evolution principles (and gameplay).

Spore is blatantly anti evolution, anti science. Just about every other game I have, and they're many, teach science better than Spore. Just get rid of the science spin.

Not that I really care. I don't need Spore to teach me evolution. I need Spore to be fun (and it could have been better in that department) But I do need it to [b]NOT TO MISREPRESENT THAT 'INTELLIGENT DESIGN' IS SCIENCE![/b]

So get rid of the science marketing spin. EA and Maxis should really be more careful. They need to thread very carefully when it comes to evolutionsts toes. If they are worried about the religious rightwing, they are worried about the wrong group.
]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/53251.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/53251.page GMT
So... you're saying Spore appeals to the lowbrow? As in... stupid people? That is what the opposite of highbrow implies, and the fact you say a large number indicates that this game was made for the portion of the population that prefers pop music, slapstick comedy, and WWE.

Edited one spelling error.
Oh, and I'm not saying people who enjoy the pop, slap, or WWE are stupid - however it is the populist lowbrow form of society as defined. ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/53458.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/53458.page GMT
I love how in this article they tackle the procedural creature creation. Rather than simply add tutorials explaining the functions of the creator, like explaining all if any consequence on your creature. Like for the 5 leg example. Once you add the 5th leg, the "speed" indicator on the stats bar could change to red and have a tool tip "Too many legs impair movement". Or "Sections of body are too heavy making the creature move slower". Wtv, i'm not saying this messages are pure gold and explain the entire problematic. But I think some of you will see what i'm getting at.

And anyways, What they said about the fact that having procedural creature creation would limit the creativity of people. In the sense that oh I can't make an 8 legged creature that runs super fast, how is that fixed in the current creature creator? Since parts are linked to wtv "attack/activity" the player is forced to chose these pieces to have a succesful creature. As much as putting no eyes makes the game harder to play, in what is that different than making an unbalanced creature and not having it funciton in an "optimal way".

And if anything, wouldn't of the procedural creature creation actually make people think when they create? In the sense of you make this funny looking creature. But when you start using it you realize that certain tweaks need to be made. And this approach would lead to discoveries of optimal placements or funny/bad results.

See in this field, the "simplyfing" of creature creation actually makes me less inclined to design anything special for, you just slap on the lvl 5 mouth and the level 5 feet, and the creature is fine. So theres no incentive of creative thinking as far as for impact on gameplay.

[/quote]

Couldn't agree more! And I don't understand why the idea of compromise (which evolution is all about) is thrown out in this game. Ok - you make a heavy creature that can't run fast, but his weight adds to his defense and his attack. Or maybe instead of running fast he has big horns that he uses as weapons. Instead there is indeed little creativity involved in creating my creature. I pick the pieces that I need to "stick on" my creatue so that I can dance better for creatures who share similar or lesser stats. Instead of feeling like I'm in a living ecosystem I feel like playing some stupid dance party game.

And to SpongB6F1, you're so right about legos. To actually build something that rolls along the ground you need to put wheels on the bottom of it - and one wheel's probably not gonna cut it. In the Spore world you can put anything any where. Maybe that's great for the creative minds of 3 and 4 year olds, but get above that a bit and kids need more stimulation (I think). Which is why legos are so succesful. Yes, you can build ANYTHING you can dream of, but whatever you build has to follow some rules. Maybe a little carried away with the Lego analogy, but what the hell ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/53596.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/53596.page GMT
Then she turned to me and we had a conversation like this:

her: "So... if I put more eyes on my cell, he can see other creatures better?"
me: "No. Putting more eyes on it doesn't matter."
her: "Really? It seemed like the bigger creatures with spikes and a dozen eyes found me a lot easier."
me: "Actually, adding a dozen eyes is the same thing as having one eye, and it doesn't matter where you put them."
her: "Oh."

I'll add, the "Oh" being expressed with disappointment. Excitement was building because Spore was almost suggesting that her changes (like the eyes) made a difference in the game world, but it did not.

I guess someone could counter-argue that placing spikes versus spit parts does make a difference. However I think these decisions never map consistently to consequences.[/quote]

A HA! They were wrong! Ok, this is only 1 person's reaction. But i'm sure that people wouldn't of been put off (as much as they seemed to imply) with procedural creature creation. And furthermore, I've posted about the fact that it does remove a bit of the incentive to experiement with the creator. Now it's just a 3d model I have to assemble that has no bearing on the game.

[/quote]

Not only that, but I find myself rushing through because there is no need to experiment. I mean, what's the point?]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/53603.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/53603.page GMT
That really seems uncalled for. "Happily"? How could you know this?

-FrL-[/quote]

Because, as others have stated, he is the head man. He has a name - Will Wright. And people in the industry treat this person like he's some kind of software God. If Will had wanted to make it so, it would have been made so. Will could have sold Spore off the Maxis website and other online download sites, cut EA out of the mix, and probably made more money in the long run (no need to share with the giant money sucker EA).]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/53616.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/53616.page GMT
But would Maxis have had enough money to fund the development? ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/53643.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/53643.page GMT
But would Maxis have had enough money to fund the development? [/quote]

That's true, considering Maxis is owned by EA rather than just being the publisher... that does make it a bit harder Will would've had to start a new company.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/53660.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/53660.page GMT
Meh. I've never liked it when people dumb down new, exciting revolutionary ideas for the idea of mass-marketing. ]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/53669.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/53669.page GMT
Kids don't like being talked down to....
I don't either.
I love science, do I study it or have it a profession? No.
Do I like reading and learning more than what I do now? Yes.

Chris Heckler is the antithesis of the science nerd, who thinks he is better than everyone, and none of us will "understand" him or science.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/92513.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/92513.page GMT http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/92583.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/92583.page GMT
Because I'm certainly willing to believe that. Actually, that's what I would have guessed. It was Will's idea, Will's toy, so they should have trusted his judgment on it. And now hopefully they can fix it back to what it's meant to be with expansions, or for Spore 2, or something.

This kind of thing is both corporate red tape and human mistakes in a nutshell. Now how long until Will gets to call the shots, instead of Cute Guy here? (News to Cute Guy, people aren't your massive market to exploit. You give them what they want, they give you what you want; money.)]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/92611.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/92611.page GMT The fact is that Spore could have appealed to the casual and the "hardcore" crowd, without any essential compromises on its original design concepts. A game like Spore could have been both accessibly engaging on a casual level and have contained enough further optional depth, in terms of sophisticated gameplay and a multitude of non-rigid, non-repetitive, non-mindless "sandbox" activities, to to keep the more invested players (not to say the more mentally active...) coming back for more. [/quote]

Exactly! The SPORE game could have been complex and still have cute creatures. I don't mind cute. What I mind is that when I put spikes on my creature's tail, it still charges things head-on. The frigging spike didn't make my creature's skull grow thicker, it's a weapon in and of itself!

Does anyone here play Armored Core? I was expecting that, done with animals. Speed is affected not only by your thrusters, but by the total weight of your Core. Want a big hulking war machine? Cool, but it's gonna go slow. Something faster more your style? Drop the heavy weapons and heavy armor. Not so in Spore. If I wanted to, I could go into the Creature Creator and make a two-vertebrae (vertebra? i dunno) ball with an eye and a mouth. Then all I have to do is slap on a couple spikes in random places. Hell, if the mouth gives +Charge, then your legless creature can [i]run[/i] its prey down. Slap on a fin or two and it will out-and-out [i]sprint[/i]. I guess it's rolling really fast...

The Cell stage works in the manner I prefer. In fact, I've had more fun hunting prey in Cell mode than I do in Creature mode! One time, with a spiney plant-eater cell, I was able to take down a much, much larger cell with a few of my fellow cells. I happened to run into a pack of my own creatures, and we managed to circle the monster cell and poke it with spikes that stood far out from the cell body. The bigger cell presented us with a weakness, [i]based on its design[/i], that my cell was able to exploit, again based on [i]its[/i] own unique design.

Fast foward several billion years to the end of Creature stage. My highly evolved and complex creature is about to attack a rival nest. When the battle is joined, does my pack encircle the prey, attacking weak points, using their smaller size to their advantage? No. They don't even spit...the two groups just close the distance and take turns whacking each other. If my creature's single, tiny arm has a grasper with a high enough "strike" stat, it will beat that four-armed monstrosity.

The result: Instead of a really awesome game that might have had a steep learning curve for a few people, I'm sitting here, writing my creature's story in a notebook as I play, because every time I raise a new species, I feel like I'm playing the same exact game with a new 3D character model. That goes triple in space.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/92632.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/92632.page GMT
I wish for Spore the way Spore was supposed to be. But Alas, I have a game that doesn't even keep my Grandchildren interested sitting on my desk.

Hmmm, the quote I copied seems to have not shown up.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/92716.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/92716.page GMT
"Cute" and meaningful gameplay is not mutually exclusive. (DO YOU HEAR THAT CHRIS HECKER AND THE CUTE TEAM?!?!?!?!!?!?!!?)

In addition to making the game "cute", the "cute team" also DESTROYED any meaningful gameplay elements. They wanted Spore to be the ultimate sandbox where in anything you design nothing really matters. Instead, it's all cosmetic with no backbone, no meaning, no purpose, no direction, and no real way to keep the user engaged at all.

This is also what I am sure was lost with Will getting overturned by corporate management.

He lost his company Maxis. It's no longer his at all. He's just a pawn and a poster-boy now. If I were him I'd quit and start up another shop again. Maxis was only what it was because of Will Wright.

There are many companies publishing their titles in an independent manner in which they still get to produce the games they want to produce. Stardock, Firaxis, Valve... the list goes on. Maxis being swallowed up by EA truly was the beginning of the end.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/92730.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/92730.page GMT The fact is that Spore could have appealed to the casual and the "hardcore" crowd, without any essential compromises on its original design concepts. A game like Spore could have been both accessibly engaging on a casual level and have contained enough further optional depth, in terms of sophisticated gameplay and a multitude of non-rigid, non-repetitive, non-mindless "sandbox" activities, to to keep the more invested players (not to say the more mentally active...) coming back for more. [/quote]

Exactly! The SPORE game could have been complex and still have cute creatures. I don't mind cute. What I mind is that when I put spikes on my creature's tail, it still charges things head-on. The frigging spike didn't make my creature's skull grow thicker, it's a weapon in and of itself!

Does anyone here play Armored Core? I was expecting that, done with animals.[/quote]

I LOVE armoured core, your the first to ignite that thought in my head of what it could've been like, armoured core was awesome that way with customizing and actually having it matter.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/92745.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/92745.page GMT I LOVE armoured core, your the first to ignite that thought in my head of what it could've been like, armoured core was awesome that way with customizing and actually having it matter.[/quote]

Maybe I should just play lower-quality games, that way when something like Spore comes along again, I'll be impressed rather than kind of disappointed by comparison.

But then, they even "redesigned" AC4, didn't they? Changed all the mechanics that I actually liked.

...why must everything I love wither and die? WHY?!?!? *sob*]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/92770.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/92770.page GMT Good old Armored Core. You could wing it through without looking at the details, but that didn't mean the details didn't matter. That's how Spore should have been.]]> http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/92818.page http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/preList/5132/92818.page GMT